Feminine Psychology Revisited, Circa 1970

a More adequate understanding of the female must include a thorough examination of the totality of her living as an adapting organism with its own assortment of biological capacities and limitations. Old fashioned controversies which range around nuture vs nature, or instinct vs culture, can no longer occupy the forefront of such investigations. It is clear that it is not a question of either-or, but of both. This fact is amply presented by the Women's Liberation groups, whatever their point of view. They all insist on the proposition that the female is a “person” and as such should be viewed entirely from this framework. While this point of view in some of these groups goes to the extent of denying sex differences, and even abolishing sexual reproduction because of the ineguity of gender roles in the reproductive process, most female liberationists demand equality on the issue of being human and not a sex object.

Yet myths and outworn theories die slowly and reluctantly. The notion that an individual's character structure is bound to biology and that the psychology of the female is largely dependent upon the presence of a female reproductive system belongs to this class of one-sided theories which still dominate a great many notions of female psychology.

Such notions persist in spite of the evidence from historical sources that sociological and religious factors have always had a hand in gender status and privilege. The dignity and overpowering influence of Freud has given a scientific coating to some of these notions, which have made them even more impregnable.

From the dawn of history the status of the female was dictated not only by her biological role, but also by the prevailing technological limitations and religious doctrines. Her role was presumed to be innate and determined exclusively by divine forces. Attempts to clarify these views through scientific progress were often resisted by the female who was hamstrung by the same cultural prejudice